Barnett: Why allow people to own weapons designed only for warfare?

Well, I wasn't going to write about this, because I know people rely on me to give them something fun to read, and this is not going to be fun.

But I have to write what’s on my heart. I’m afraid the lump in my throat won’t go away if I don’t.

I have three grandchildren in Pickens County schools, and I would rather somebody come and shoot me dead right now than for anything to happen to them.

I’m sure most of you feel the same way about your loved ones.

That said, if somebody were to come into my house and try to shoot me, I would be ready for them. I keep a can of Hot Shot wasp and hornet spray in the bedroom that can shoot out a stream of noxious chemicals up to 25 feet, right into the eyes, nose and mouth of any would-be attacker. They will be incapacitated while I call 911, and I’ll keep them that way until help arrives.

I have a baseball bat, too, which I can swing if necessary, after they’ve been sprayed and neutralized.

And just in case you’re thinking about coming and taking your chances against me and my bug spray, I’m not saying I don’t have any lethal weapons at my disposal — although I would prefer not to use them. (Also, Kathy does have a concealed weapons permit.)

I think schools should use the same method, or something similar. (Not necessarily the baseball bat part or the concealed weapons). I understand that pepper spray cans that can squirt out a stream of the stuff at a distance are available, too.

So that’s my self-defense recommendation. Don’t keep guns laying around the house, because your kids are more likely to be killed by them than saved by them. Nearly 1,300 children die and 5,790 are treated for gunshot wounds each year, according to a study done last year by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

How often do you hear of kids accidentally shooting themselves or someone else? Too often. How often do you hear of gun-wielding parents fending off would-be attackers? Hardly ever.

But the bigger issue as far as school shootings like the one in Florida last week that has me feeling so sad is the type of guns these mass killers use.

If I were expecting 17 armed criminals to come attack me at home, I might feel the need for an AR-15. But I don’t think many of us are anticipating that kind of assault.

So what in the heck would I or anybody else need with a high-powered rifle that could pop off 30 rounds as fast as they could pull the trigger – unless they're planning on going and shooting up some place?

Now, I know the Second Amendment is sacred to many people, and I don’t advocate the government trying to disarm the populace. But common sense says there has to be limits to what kind of weapons are in mass circulation. ("Bazookas don't kill people. Only people kill people." That's an example of NOT common sense.)

The slippery slope argument – that banning assault rifles would lead to banning guns altogether — makes no sense at all. Let’s limit the ban to weapons of mass destruction.

I know, most gun crimes are committed by people with handguns. And somebody, if they could get into a school with a handgun, could kill a handful of people, and that would be tragic. But why allow weapons that are designed for warfare? Use some common sense.

Assault weapons were banned for 10 years – or at least you couldn’t buy a new one during that period. And when Congress let the ban expire in 2004, I wrote a story about it, quoting the Greenville County Sheriff’s Office, the State Law Enforcement Division and the International Association of Chiefs of Police all opposing allowing the ban to expire.

But politics won out. Our own U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham called the ban “a violation of the constitutional rights of responsible Americans" and said he would oppose any attempt to reinstate it.

“I hope that we can now move on to prosecuting criminals rather than infringing on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens,” he said at the time.

OK, let’s look at the “original intent” of the Second Amendment. It is stated very clearly in its opening, dependent clause: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State …”

Since the Founding Fathers weren’t keen on having a standing army, they thought the people should be armed and ready to report for military duty, and that the people should be able to protect themselves from tyranny by their own government. Is there any other reasonable way to read that?

I know the Supreme Court somehow found a way, or at least five of the nine justices did, in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. My understanding is that they believed self-defense was an “inherent right,” hence, owning guns is a right.

I won’t argue against self-defense being an inherent right and owning guns therefore being an inherent right. But don’t lay that on the altar of the Constitution.

The Second Amendment refers to the right “to bear arms.” In the days of the framers of the Constitution, that term was used invariably in the military sense, according to a study published in the Journal of Constitutional Law in 2008.

“Did Congress ever employ ‘bear arms’ in an individual sense? Did an individual construction of ‘bear arms’ have any currency in the colonial and American press? These are empirical questions, and, when properly framed and exhaustively researched, the answer to both is a decisive no,” the author, history professor Nathan Kozuskanich, concludes.

Well, I have rambled and expressed my opinion on the issue, and I don’t feel much better. I’ll feel better when politicians start listening to people like the students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School who want something done about assault rifles.

I don’t know that you could take them all off the streets, but if there were a law against them, and law-abiding citizens followed the law, they wouldn’t be laying around in people’s houses for troubled teenagers to get their hands on.